From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49C16139694 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 19:44:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C8771FC0B4; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 19:44:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com (ironport2-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.154.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12C3C1FC095 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 19:44:16 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BOAwAV5XxZ/4mIpUVcGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBg1pEgQ0njwCPB4FrLQGXb4VBBAICg3NEFAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRkBBAE6HCgLCyETEg8FJTeKJwizLIs8ATGDKIJTeoUIhUCCd4IxAQSfbwKCKpFuiy8ahwGULoFENiGBCoEECIYUgWokNoovAQEB X-IPAS-Result: A0BOAwAV5XxZ/4mIpUVcGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBg1pEgQ0njwCPB4FrLQGXb4VBBAICg3NEFAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRkBBAE6HCgLCyETEg8FJTeKJwizLIs8ATGDKIJTeoUIhUCCd4IxAQSfbwKCKpFuiy8ahwGULoFENiGBCoEECIYUgWokNoovAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,432,1496116800"; d="scan'208";a="322211529" Received: from 69-165-136-137.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO waltdnes.org) ([69.165.136.137]) by smtp.teksavvy.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2017 15:44:14 -0400 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:44:07 -0400 From: "Walter Dnes" Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:44:07 -0400 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? Message-ID: <20170729194407.GA17006@waltdnes.org> References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) X-Archives-Salt: 3e18b939-de16-4412-aed7-bf2c669a69b0 X-Archives-Hash: e30136d75ce939d3efbadbaa18660c9c On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 05:56:25PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote > If upstream does a new release, fixes bugs. Gentoo marks a previous > release stable. It is stabilizing a package with issues fixed upstream. > That does not make sense. Gentoo issues maybe good, but not upstreams. > > I maintained packages like iText which used to have a 30 day release > cycle. Up till recently Jetty was about the same. As a end user, I > needed the bug fixes. Not the delay for it be marked stable. > > I stopped running Redhat long ago due to time to vet updates. I run > Gentoo for the speed of being able to package and test out new code. What I get out of this discussion is that some people prefer to run ~arch versus stable arch. I have no problem with that. But I do object to dropping "stable" altogether. I personally run stable with the rare occasional unstable package, where it's either not available as stable, or the unstable version fixes a bug in the stable version. And just for kicks I'm running gcc 6.3.0. It's one thing to rush-stabilize a new package that fixes a security hole. But I don't see the point of rush-stabilizing everything "just because". I recommend mostly keeping our current setup, with one change, i.e. allowing security-fix ebuilds to go "stable" immediately. -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications